In the pitfall department is the historian's bias. The author may have a pet theory - such as all history is based on greed, and contrive the facts to fit the theory. Then there are the revisionists. Originally revisionist history was based on new facts coming to light. An example would be the release of previously secret documents. Today revisionism is more likely based on current morays being applied to other eras, or race and gender agendas.

Before you delve into the text, read the book reviews. They are available at your library or on-line. Reading the book's prologue or introduction carefully will usually tip the reader off as to the author's bias. Now, having a bias is not a crime. You might even agree with the author's point of view. But you should be aware that the bias exist, and to what ends the author is presenting the "historical facts."

One way to get around the pitfall department is to first read a noted "conventionalist." For example, texts authored by Arthur S. Link or Carl Degler, are almost universally considered a straight forward descriptions of historical events. Too, they have a clear, easy to understand writing style. Another way to avoid eschewed facts is to read the original source material - then draw your own conclusions. There is a good deal of source material on the Web - presidential papers and such.

The professional v. the non-professional.

Some of the best work in the field has been done by non-historians. Cornelius Ryan's The Longest Day is an example. Other works like Costain's History of the Plantagenets, or the series of books Harold Lamp wrote on ancient rulers are well worth reading. The one thing these tomes have in common is that they tended to be scorned by professional historians. The usual reasons given are the books in question are light weight and breeze over the facts. Mind you, there is often some truth to the criticism, but the motivation is suspect.

NOTE: Scorn is not limited to the non-professional. Barbara Tuchman's two great works, The Proud Tower and The Guns of August, were roundly criticized mainly because she used a format and style the average reader could not only understand but enjoy.

So is it safe to "read" history? You bet. By all means read history and enjoy the experience. And by all means, reader beware.

Links to selected historical archives:

• Electronic Documents in History

• Other Archives and Historical Collections